Judicial Decision-Making

Jamie MonoganUniversity of Georgia

October 15, 2014

Objectives

By the end of this meeting, participants should be able to:•Describe the appeals process, including the Supreme Court’s process of hearing an appeal.•Argue whether the Supreme Court should rule by ideology or precedent.

The Appeals Procedure in the State and Federal Systems

Common Law and Legal Precedent• The U.S. operates largely under a

common law system– Higher-level courts set legal

precedents– Stare decisis– Overturning of precedent– Common law used in Britain as well

• Many other countries have a civil law system

The Path of a Supreme Court Case• Deciding what cases to hear

– The “rule of four” and writ of certiorari– Court receives about 8,000 petitions a

year and takes fewer than 80 cases

• Often pick cases where lower court decisions are at odds

• Lower court ruling stands if the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case

The Path of a Supreme Court Case• Once a case is granted “cert” the

two sides submit briefs– Others also submit briefs as amicus

curiae

• Oral arguments allow each side to make its case before the Court

• Justices meet in a private conference– Discuss case and opinion writing

The Path of a Supreme Court Case

CONCEPT MAP

ATTITUDINAL MODEL

This model of judicial decision making posits that a judge’s behavior can be predicted largely by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Thus, they decide cases according to ideological preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts or by precedent.

STRATEGIC MODEL

The strategic model acknowledges that judges seek to achieve policy goals. But it also acknowledges that they are subject to certain constraints in doing so. Since they cannot act simply according to preference, they must act strategically to achieve their goals given the constraints.

LEGAL MODEL

The legal model assumes that judges submit to the law when making decisions. If a judge has any personal preference for an outcome in a case, it is assumed that he or she leaves these preferences aside and defers to the facts of the case, the plain meaning of the Constitution or statute, the intention of its framers, or legal precedent when making his or her decision.

Supreme Court Justices’ Ideology

Minority Rights versus Majority Rule• Minority groups historically have

turned to the courts to help overturn discriminatory laws–Fighting of Jim Crow laws in the

South

• Courts can protect rights and liberties

• Often courts follow public opinion

Restraint versus Activism• Categorize judges based on their

philosophical approach to the law–Strict constructivism & judicial

restraint– Judicial activism

• Judiciary is the least political branch, but still deeply political–Today activism can be seen by both

liberal and conservative justices

Politics of Judicial Appointments• Appointments have become

more contentious and confirmations have slowed down

• The more ideological the nominee, the more contentious

• Judicial appointments are a way for presidents to leave a legacy

Assignments

• The Chapter 8 concept map exercise is due tonight at 11:59pm.–Login to ELC to complete.

• For Friday: Read Bullock & Gaddie, Chapter 7

• The second exam is scheduled for Wednesday, October 22